Paging Joe Romm… Remember this ridiculous moment in climate politics last year?
Well guess what kids, there’s a new peer reviewed paper to be published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, and in the press release about the paper, they don’t even mention the word “climate”. Simply put, a rogue storm system, part of the normal chaotic nature of weather on this planet, was the cause. Nothing else. Anyone who claims it was part of “climate change” is simply flat wrong, and that includes Hillary.
This paper was presented today at the AMS meeting in Seattle.
From Eurekalert:
Rogue storm system caused Pakistan floods that left millions homeless
Last summer’s disastrous Pakistan floods that killed more than 2,000 people and left more than 20 million injured or homeless were caused by a rogue weather system that wandered hundreds of miles farther west than is normal for such systems, new research shows.
Storm systems that bring widespread, long-lasting rain over eastern India and Bangladesh form over the Bay of Bengal, at the east edge of India, said Robert Houze, a University of Washington atmospheric sciences professor. But Pakistan, on the Arabian Sea west of India, is substantially more arid and its storms typically produce only locally heavy rainfall.
The flooding began in July and at one point it was estimated that 20 percent of Pakistan’s total land area was under water. Structural damage was estimated at more than $4 billion, and the World Health Organization estimated that as many as 10 million people had to drink unsafe water.
Houze and colleagues examined radar data from the Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission satellite and were able to see that the rainfall that caused the Indus River in Pakistan to overflow was triggered over the Himalayas, within a storm system that had formed over the Bay of Bengal in late July and moved unusually far to the west. Because the rain clouds were within the moisture-laden storm from the east, they were able to pour abnormal amounts of rain on the barren mountainsides, which then ran into the Indus.
The progress of the storm system stood out in the satellite radar data, Houze said.
“We looked through 10 years of data from the satellite and we just never saw anything like this,” he said. “The satellite only passes over the area a couple of times a day, but it just happened to see these systems at a time when they were well developed.”
Houze is the lead author of a paper detailing the findings to be published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. Co-authors are Kristen Rasmussen, Socorro Medina and Stacy Brodzik of the UW and Ulrike Romatschke of the University of Vienna in Austria.
Houze also will discuss the findings during a session Tuesday (Jan. 25) at the American Meteorological Society’s annual meeting in Seattle
The storms were associated with a wind pattern that could be traced in the satellite data back to its origin over the Bay of Bengal, Houze said. Finding the storm system’s signature in the satellite data makes it possible to incorporate that information into weather forecast models. That could make it possible for meteorologists to forecast when conditions are favorable for such an event to occur again and provide a warning.
“I think this was a rare event, but it is one you want to be thinking about,” Houze said. “Understanding what happened could lead to better predictions of such disasters in the future.”
For more information, contact Houze at 206-543-6922 or houze@uw.edu.
NOTE: The Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission is a joint project of NASA and the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“a rogue weather system”
Rogue? LOL. Like a rogue elephant? Or Palin Gone Rogue?
Is this a new term now introduced into the climate narrative?
Well, the logical next step for the AGW gang will be to identify the cause of this “rogue” behavior, which must be a predictable symptom of irritable climate syndrome. I’m sure there must be some pill or therapy for that.
Kevin MacDonald:
Smokey and Al Gored and KD are right. You said: “we can attribute changes in weather patterns to climate change.” Not scientifically, you can’t. That’s only speculation. I agree that you don’t understand the null hypothesis and how it works.: If a new hypothesis can’t show there’s a difference, then the new hypothesis fails.
There is no difference in the climate between pre-industrial co2 levels and the present climate with higher co2. The events you get so hyper about have always happened. It’s just natural climate variation. You believe they’re some kind of proof of cAGW? Well they’re not. They’re just normal and natural weather events. They happen now like they happened five hundred years ago or 2,500 years ago. Weather patterns naturally change over time, they always have.
It’s OK, Kevin MacDonald is on vacation from his regular job.
He’s arguing in his spare time:
Can anybody explain to me why politicians in general and on this occasion Hillary Clinton in particular do not believe in published climate data that are being presented as “Official and correct”?
The data I am talking about (or rather the reporting on the data) is that 2010 has just been proved to have TIED WITH 1998 as the hottest year since records began.
Tied with, as far as I, and most people I know, understand it is the same as “a dead heat” in, say a marathon. – That must then mean that there was no other year (or years) between, or before the two that were hotter. I think there may have been some talk about 2005 coming very close, but very close is not good enough.
It must then follow that there has been no “global warming” between 1998 and 2010.
No Man made warming = no man made climate change = no man made solutions possible.
OHD
Rational Debate @ur momisugly January 26, 2011 at 2:27 am
From Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr.
Link to PDF
2010 Pakistan Floods: Climate Change or Natural Variability?
Hillary Clinton is a politician not merely a scientist. What do scientist know about this ?(sarc). If it turns out that the politicians and the royal society are wrong about global warming and it starts getting clearly colder, will we get back all the money they have taken from us because of global warming.
a few nits to pick.
First off this one was part of the southwest monsoon system, happens in summer in Northern hemisphere. This is not part of the NorthEast monsoon that happens in bangladesh, northeast india and eastern shore of india. That happens later in the year, like november
Usually the SW monsoon creates a lot of precip, without too much wind, and it happens from western srilanka, all the way to Gujarat in india, along the western shore. Bombay, for example, ( mumbai these days ) gets a constant rain, adding up to a lot. — like 80-90 inches per year.
normally flooding kills a bunch of people. takes down a few willages. But it does not go up north as much as it did this time.
Up north, until you reach punjab, so much of that area is like desert ( Tar desert is there ) .
SO, It cannot hold much water. It starts flooding easily. That is what you saw this summer
re post: Kevin MacDonald says: January 26, 2011 at 10:59 am
Ok, Kevin, so let’s talk a bit about logic. Given that you claim to teach college level statistics, algebra and the like I would first note that a GOOD professor would integrate logic into these sorts of courses. Far too many, however, do NOT and instead teach rote memorization – if even that these days. So your claim is suspect right off the bat.
Next, let’s take a simple look at your own logic. First, how logical is it to make a statement that is so vague as to be meaningless and then claim it to be unassailable logic? You wrote:
So, gee, weather patterns during the transitions from interglacial to glacial periods prior to the existence of man on the face of the earth are therefor pieces of evidence in favor of AGW theory? Present day weather patterns that are completely within the historical norms prior to any significant man made emissions of CO2 are also evidence in favor of AGW? I hardly think so, and yet using your logic, this is exactly what you are claiming. Logical? Not. Good, college level formation of an argument, using logic to support your assertion? Not.
You go on to say:
I’m sorry, but logically of course you can have it both ways. You aren’t talking about a single instance of peer review. Peer review is done by many different people, by many different institutions. Like anything else done by man, there will be cases that are done quite well and others that fail miserably. Using any smidgen of logic, almost by definition peer review across the spectrum is both ways, robust and not robust.
You continue with:
Here again, let’s check the logic of your statement. While it is unlikely, it is in fact entirely possible for there to be a situation(s) where peer review is corrupt when contradicting someone’s view and unimpeachable when it doesn’t. That’s almost beside the point, but I note it as another aspect of problems with your logic as you expressed it in these posts.
More to the point, for your assertion to be logical, you would have to provide some evidence that this blog actually claims, without basis in fact, that peer review of climate related research supporting skeptical points of view is unimpeachable – and that peer review of AGW supporting research is corrupt. Frankly, I don’t think you have a chance of coming close to showing anything of the sort about this blog.
If you want to assail others for supposed logical fallacies and so on, you might want to be more careful about your own statements.
The ancient Indus Valley city of Mohenjo-Daro was somehow destroyed seven times by floods, all before 1700 BC and without the help of CO2 emissions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohenjo-daro .
Rocky H says:
January 26, 2011 at 12:47 pm
Kevin MacDonald:
Smokey and Al Gored and KD are right. You said: “we can attribute changes in weather patterns to climate change.” Not scientifically, you can’t. That’s only speculation.
No its not. Climate is the aggregate of weather, if the precipitation events (weather) increase then climate has changed and, similarly, if we see sustained, statistically significant changes in the frequency of other weather events then the climate has changed. That would not be speculation, it would be observation.
I agree that you don’t understand the null hypothesis and how it works.:
Agree with whom?
If a new hypothesis can’t show there’s a difference, then the new hypothesis fails.
When did I dispute this? I can’t post on these threads without facing a slew of straw man fallacies.
Rational Debate says:
January 26, 2011 at 3:08 pm
Ok, Kevin, so let’s talk a bit about logic. Given that you claim to teach college level statistics, algebra and the like
No I don’t, such appeals to authority are generally unverifiable on-line and I don’t engage in them. Still, despite the fact you fabricate stuff I’m sure the Rational Debate moniker is well earned.
re post: Kevin MacDonald says: January 26, 2011 at 11:39 pm
My bad on the claim to teaching aspect of my post – clearly I attributed that claim from someone else’s post incorrectly to Kevin MacDonald. Nothing ‘fabricated,’ just an honest mix up in attribution from another post in this same thread. The rest of my post related to Kevin’s logic is, I believe still correctly referring to claims made by Kevin. Clearly he didn’t bother to address those aspects, even tho they were pretty clearly the most pertinent.
Rational Debate says:
January 27, 2011 at 12:28 am
My bad on the claim to teaching aspect of my post – clearly I attributed that claim from someone else’s post incorrectly to Kevin MacDonald. Nothing ‘fabricated,’ just an honest mix up in attribution from another post in this same thread.
Incorrectly attributing facts seems to be the norm around here, so I wouldn’t worry too much about it.
The rest of my post related to Kevin’s logic is, I believe still correctly referring to claims made by Kevin. Clearly he didn’t bother to address those aspects, even tho they were pretty clearly the most pertinent.
They weren’t pertinent, the were the standard straw man fallacies I always encounter when I post on here:
So, gee, weather patterns during the transitions from interglacial to glacial periods prior to the existence of man on the face of the earth are therefor pieces of evidence in favor of AGW theory? Present day weather patterns that are completely within the historical norms prior to any significant man made emissions of CO2 are also evidence in favor of AGW? I hardly think so, and yet using your logic, this is exactly what you are claiming. Logical? Not. Good, college level formation of an argument, using logic to support your assertion? Not.
Standard scientific method, a theory makes a prediction and if that prediction is realised it is considered a proof for the theory. You appear to be questioning the validity of the actual prediction which, whilst a perfectly fair point, is not the debate I’m having. Straw man fallacy.
I’m sorry, but logically of course you can have it both ways. You aren’t talking about a single instance of peer review. Peer review is done by many different people, by many different institutions. Like anything else done by man, there will be cases that are done quite well and others that fail miserably. Using any smidgen of logic, almost by definition peer review across the spectrum is both ways, robust and not robust.
This is point you should take up with Anthony, not me, the terms of reference are his. If something is published and peer reviewed contradicting it is “flat wrong”, no ifs, no buts, that’s what it says in the article. So another straw man.
The article featured in this blogpost does not contradict the theory that global warming will make severe floods more frequent. It merely outlines the weather mechanism that caused the recent Pakistani flood.
The projection of more frequent floods and droughts is based on modeling the future. The article did not touch on this point at all.
[snip – OTT and off color – Anthony]
re post by: Kevin MacDonald says: January 27, 2011 at 1:42 am [Kevin is referring to my post Rational Debate says: January 27, 2011 at 12:28 am]
My comments related to your lack of logic, Kevin – an issue which you utterly fail to address and instead resort to misdirection. There were no straw men in my post, a bit of psychological projection on your part perhaps, as that’s the direction you promptly headed in your reply.
I had stated: Next, let’s take a simple look at your own logic. First, how logical is it to make a statement that is so vague as to be meaningless and then claim it to be unassailable logic? You wrote:
….Given that changes in weather patterns are one of the predictions of AGW theory, it is another piece of evidence in favour of it….
Then I followed with a logical example showing your error. You ignored the point, jump to the examples, and proceed to claim that those examples, which you admit were accurate, aren’t what you were arguing. Only I never made claimed they were. On the contrary, I simply provided examples of how YOUR logic was flawed – and you have now agreed that those were accurate points, all while trying to pretend that I was talking about the specifics of those examples, rather than your logical failure which those examples demonstrate.
You go on to say:
Actually, Kevin, as an aside; standard scientific method is to propose a hypothesis, not a theory. Further, it takes a huge number of positive results and virtually no negative before a hypothesis comes close to being a theory.
As to what the rest, as already noted of course I wasn’t questioning anything of the sort; you have apparently utterly missed the point I was making about your logical fallacy (or you got the point perfectly well, and simply chose to try to deflect and misdirect rather than admit error).
Finally you stated:
Yes, I’ll say it’s a straw man alright – YOURS. Anthony makes no such statement in his article, and its really disingenuous for you to continue making this claim.